power tripping Gm?


Advice

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The Crusader wrote:
seto83 wrote:

I will provide a few examples.

Banned barbarians cause they aren't fun for him to kill.

Didn't alot us exp for an encounter we stratgicly avoided ie: bribed our way through instead of fighting.

Decided for his convince to add spell like abilities to a enemy who didn't have them ie: drow can levitate at will.

Picking on a character ie: If he doesn't like someones character goes out of his way to kill it, like making it the first and primary center of all attacks.

I will assume that you provided the most egregious examples, which in your case... just aren't that bad.

I don't want to gloss over your discomfort in the game, but:

Banning a class is perfectly reasonable for any number of reasons, and I would say "fun" is the most important one. If something isn't fun then why are you playing?

Awarding experience is almost 100% DM decision. Avoiding an encounter can be the equal of defeating it... or not. It's hard to say, and it's a DM's prerogative.

Boosting a NPC's or a monster's power is completely within a DM's rights. Not an issue at all.

The last is maybe your most significant argument, but there's very little information here. Are these intelligent creatures identifying the clearest and most obvious threat? Or unintelligent monsters displaying strange bias? It's hard to determine whether this is abuse just by your description.

Not the most egregious just the most recent so easiest to recall on the fly.


PirateDevon wrote:

I feel like the thing that is missing in my understanding of this is context of the decisions in how they were presented.

"Hey man I was thinking about running a barbarian."

"NO BARBS ARE BAD and are BANNED"

is way different than;

Well in this setting I am running there aren't any because of x, y, z

Same thing with the drow. Sure a gm should mix things up. A floating Drow? Woah! Never heard of that, wow we gotta re-think this vs. "Uh no you can't catch him because he..uh... jumps off the cliff and he.. uh ..LEVITATES! yeah!"

I guess what I am getting at is were these expected adjustments or were they things that came across in the heat of the moment? I have targeted specific players...because they were 7ft of walking plate mail but that is different than "oh hey, guess what everyone here can see invisibility, guess what Bilbo? You get stabbed for *picks up 80 d10s*

Rule 0 is for adjudication, not to drop the dice on people while being an a$&$~$*. There are both constructive and non-constructive ways to challenge PC notions of the rules and I think that plays a big role in setting off whether the player is being too sensitive to being caught off guard versus a GM being a jerk.

But I agree with others. If this is sudden and the group is well established and are friends then most likely something is going on with the individual beyond GMing.

No your not misunderstanding he said no more barbarians they weren't fun for him to kill, and then compared it to eating spam instead of steak.

Funny you metion the cliff cause that's almost excactly the way it went down had his drow against a cliff and he goes I know what he will do kicks of cliff levtivates and begans firing a bow at us. Then used levitate to avoid difficult terrin in a seprate encounter with drow. When he did that they still got full move and attack dispate moving non vertically how because he said they could.


By targeting I mean all open volley automatic go for one person and villians will move past other threats to get to said person.

Liberty's Edge

seto83 wrote:
By targeting I mean all open volley automatic go for one person and villians will move past other threats to get to said person.

This is not always a bad thing... intelligent enemies should target the person they think is either the biggest threat or the easiest to remove to whittle down the odds. And ignoring the big heavy armored fighter in favor of the guy in the dress behind him is a sound strategy, and so is the reverse, ignoring everyone and pouring all the firepower into the big brawler to bring them down.


KainPen wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
KaiPen ... no. NO NO NO NO NO. The GM's job is NOT NOT NOT to kill all characters. That's textbook bad GMing and totally missing the point of the game.
I don't think it is bad gming, that is the monsters and villan job correct, If the gm does not try to do this, with every encounter, you fail as a gm because the game becomes to easy the game never become challangeing and the reward of victory are not as sweet. Go for the kill just don't be a jerk about it. That how is how players learn to be better players. The good guys don't always win. Killing a character is meaning less as it is so a GM should aim to do it. It make the game harder and more fun in the long run. the system already has a way to cheat death, via raise dead ect. If the it can't be raised roll up a new one.

*facepalm* Pathetic. Disgusting.

No, it's not. if the GM's job was to kill everybody, he'd just go 'you all have heart attacks and die! new PCs'.

This is a game of cooperative storytelling, not a competitive game. The DM is working with the players to create an entertaining story and gaming experience, not working against them to drive them into the ground.


Fomsie wrote:
seto83 wrote:
By targeting I mean all open volley automatic go for one person and villians will move past other threats to get to said person.
This is not always a bad thing... intelligent enemies should target the person they think is either the biggest threat or the easiest to remove to whittle down the odds. And ignoring the big heavy armored fighter in favor of the guy in the dress behind him is a sound strategy, and so is the reverse, ignoring everyone and pouring all the firepower into the big brawler to bring them down.

Unless it's going to make the game less fun for people. Then you do what will make the game more fun.


Then you need to talk to him as a group and find out what's going on. If nothing outside of the game is influancing his sudden behavior then he needs to step down as GM.

If he's going through some personal things that are contributing to this, then he needs to step down as GM until said issue gets resolved. If this is the case maybe someone else can run a hack and slash game apart from your normal game, as a form of therapy.

I've done that for people in my group. They make a high level character and I let them cut through hordes of monsters, Serious Sam style. No story, just gore. It can be relaxing swimming in the blood of your enemies.

The Exchange

seto83 wrote:
PirateDevon wrote:
Said stuff...

No your not misunderstanding he said no more barbarians they weren't fun for him to kill, and then compared it to eating spam instead of steak.

Funny you metion the cliff cause that's almost excactly the way it went down had his drow against a cliff and he goes I know what he will do kicks of cliff levtivates and begans firing a bow at us. Then used levitate to avoid difficult terrin in a seprate encounter with drow. When he did that they still got full move and attack dispate moving non vertically how because he said they could.

Hmm. I certainly would have a problem if one of my constant gaming companions started talking that way about certain character classes but you know the individual better than any of us.

The cliff thing is hard. If it suddenly occurred to him, that is fine but if he isn't even applying the appropriate penalties that illustrates to me that he is passing beyond the limit of potentially feeling frustrated that the players are styming his plans (we DMs can't help but invest some in our schemes even us "everyone is here to have fun" types...or maybe just me ;p) and heading into strict "I want to win" mode.

I don't play video games that suddenly kill me for no good reason. I don't read books or watch movies that suddenly change on me for no good reason. Good reason. Just suddenly declaring that the enemies gain an advantage heretofore unspecified seems like a problem to me.

Edit: With the caveat that some sort of narrative twist or mechanical "shake it up" goal is obvious. I spring things on people all the time. Execution is important though because it can kill a table's enthusiasm like nobody's business.

The Exchange

Fomsie wrote:
seto83 wrote:
By targeting I mean all open volley automatic go for one person and villians will move past other threats to get to said person.
This is not always a bad thing... intelligent enemies should target the person they think is either the biggest threat or the easiest to remove to whittle down the odds. And ignoring the big heavy armored fighter in favor of the guy in the dress behind him is a sound strategy, and so is the reverse, ignoring everyone and pouring all the firepower into the big brawler to bring them down.

Right but I get the impression form seto83's description we are talking about something that doesn't seem intelligent but malicious. We only have his word but in context with the other actions this doesn't sound like

A: "The mage is the source of their true power, kill him!"

it sounds like

B:"Jared makes characters that are a pain in my ass. Kill him!".

If it is "A" I say that is fair and right and all is good in the universe. If it is "B" I say talk to Jared or grow up. Hammering on a player's character out of some sense of personal malice is childish. But the context matter here too...because there could always be

C:"Jared makes munchkiny power gaming b~#++~!! characters and even though I have talked to him about it like an adult, I obviously need to point out to him that choices have consequences because he is ruining the game for others."

But "C" should rarely if ever come up in games with real friends? I've seen that more in store or club games where the people don't "know" each other or can't seem to have a human conversation. I think it is mostly a bad way to go but I will concede that it happens.


PirateDevon wrote:
Fomsie wrote:
seto83 wrote:
By targeting I mean all open volley automatic go for one person and villians will move past other threats to get to said person.
This is not always a bad thing... intelligent enemies should target the person they think is either the biggest threat or the easiest to remove to whittle down the odds. And ignoring the big heavy armored fighter in favor of the guy in the dress behind him is a sound strategy, and so is the reverse, ignoring everyone and pouring all the firepower into the big brawler to bring them down.

Right but I get the impression form seto83's description we are talking about something that doesn't seem intelligent but malicious. We only have his word but in context with the other actions this doesn't sound like

A: "The mage is the source of their true power, kill him!"

it sounds like

B:"Jared makes characters that are a pain in my ass. Kill him!".

If it is "A" I say that is fair and right and all is good in the universe. If it is "B" I say talk to Jared or grow up. Hammering on a player's character out of some sense of personal malice is childish. But the context matter here too...because there could always be

C:"Jared makes munchkiny power gaming b*@@+@#! characters and even though I have talked to him about it like an adult, I obviously need to point out to him that choices have consequences because he is ruining the game for others."

But "C" should rarely if ever come up in games with real friends? I've seen that more in store or club games where the people don't "know" each other or can't seem to have a human conversation. I think it is mostly a bad way to go but I will concede that it happens.

Yes it's more of b


Hi all, im seto83 gm.
First and foremost, seto, im very disappointed with you. Accusing me of all this in a forum withouth even calling me out to discuss the matter isnt the best approach for this, specially when most of those said accusations are misinterpreted at best.

First thing, I didnt used these exact words for baning the barbarian. In fact, I banned them because they're harder for me to challenge than most classes, and as such I have trouble building encounters that are fair for everyone. Their ability to pounce, near immunity to magic and huge damage has proven more than a trouble for me in the past, and I decided it would be easier for me to GM withouth having to deal with this.

Second, I make the decisions I believe will be the most healthy for our gaming group. Sometimes it may seem arbitrary, but keep in mind that my main concerns are the game balance, something I try hard to achieve in order for a better overall gaming experience. The experience award is based on killing monsters alone for now, as im still analyzing the alternative metods for awarding it. It may change in the future, but for now I prefer to maintain it as is.

Third, you're accusing me of being a killer gm. Im not. If the players are using poor tactics in combat, its just normal for the monsters to attack what seems to be the better target in groups. Players should look to cover their more fragile allies in order to avoid such tactics. As for the added abilities in the monsters, I do this mainly to discourage the players from using the books as reference. I prefer to avoid the possibilities of metagaming, and this seems a good approach to do so.

Im really, really disappointed with you for making such accusations about me in the forums, man. Is that how much our 8 years or so of friendship is worth to you? I must ask you to not bring such things before even having a serious conversation with me, thats the least I could expect from you.

And yeah, im having some personal problems in the last few months, maybe my gm style has suffered a little from this, but I dont believe im being as horrible as youre implying to the community. Still, im sorry if I made you and the group feel that way. Sometimes its hard to separate real life issues from the gaming table.


Welcome to the Paizo forum Newly GM

I am not sure he ACCUSED you of anything, yes i know technically he accused of you some things (he said you did some things) but i didn't get the impression of seto83 badmouthing you (maybe blowing some steam).

Anyway i hope you solve any problems you might have (both in the game and in your personal life).


That's a pretty good response post.


Ironically I frequently Ban barbarians because they are too hard to NOT kill. They are usually one of the biggest threats on the board and when they go unconscious they usually die from damage. I like being able to knock my players out without it being an auto-kill.


Hey, Newly GM.

I can understand why you feel this is a bad way to address the issue. But, try not to rush to that judgement. The Paizo messageboards are a great tool for engaging others who have encountered similar situations and getting advice for address or redress.

Sometimes problems can get blown out of proportion, can get exacerbated, or have very simple solutions that aren't apparent to the principals involved. Also, keep in mind that approaching a friend about such problems can be extremely difficult. The forums anonymity allows someone to investigate experiences and solutions without really disparraging someone.

Just my 2 cp.

(Now that you two are communicating about the issue, it's probably best left to you two alone.)

Dark Archive

Give your gm a break and offer to run the next campaign yourself. It does not have to be an entire adventure path. You could just do a single old module that only plays put over about two or three levels. When preparing these games, speak to the gm about why he thought his changes were better and ask question about those changes. Present your side of the argument. When you run, have the page numbers ready you run things differently.


The Crusader wrote:
(Now that you two are communicating about the issue, it's probably best left to you two alone.)

+1


krevon wrote:
Drow Nobles can levitate and I banned clerics and paladins in my current game because the gods are missing. I don't agree on the not giving out xp part but hey I played under a gm that gave extra xp for critical hits, me playing a wizard didn't see much extra xp.

Why do you not allow players to play these classes without their magical aspects? What about the clerics that existed prior to the deities disappearances awaiting their return? Would that not be a very easy plot / goal / roleplay factor for a character of those classes to have?


Sarrah wrote:
krevon wrote:
Drow Nobles can levitate and I banned clerics and paladins in my current game because the gods are missing. I don't agree on the not giving out xp part but hey I played under a gm that gave extra xp for critical hits, me playing a wizard didn't see much extra xp.
Why do you not allow players to play these classes without their magical aspects? What about the clerics that existed prior to the deities disappearances awaiting their return? Would that not be a very easy plot / goal / roleplay factor for a character of those classes to have?

So the player of such a paladin would play the warrior NPC class with high will save and the player of such a cleric would play the same but with 3/4 BAB instead of full BAB.

Would really someone play those things for fun?


Newly GM wrote:

Hi all, im seto83 gm.

First and foremost, seto, im very disappointed with you. Accusing me of all this in a forum withouth even calling me out to discuss the matter isnt the best approach for this, specially when most of those said accusations are misinterpreted at best.

First thing, I didnt used these exact words for baning the barbarian. In fact, I banned them because they're harder for me to challenge than most classes, and as such I have trouble building encounters that are fair for everyone. Their ability to pounce, near immunity to magic and huge damage has proven more than a trouble for me in the past, and I decided it would be easier for me to GM withouth having to deal with this.

Second, I make the decisions I believe will be the most healthy for our gaming group. Sometimes it may seem arbitrary, but keep in mind that my main concerns are the game balance, something I try hard to achieve in order for a better overall gaming experience. The experience award is based on killing monsters alone for now, as im still analyzing the alternative metods for awarding it. It may change in the future, but for now I prefer to maintain it as is.

Third, you're accusing me of being a killer gm. Im not. If the players are using poor tactics in combat, its just normal for the monsters to attack what seems to be the better target in groups. Players should look to cover their more fragile allies in order to avoid such tactics. As for the added abilities in the monsters, I do this mainly to discourage the players from using the books as reference. I prefer to avoid the possibilities of metagaming, and this seems a good approach to do so.

Im really, really disappointed with you for making such accusations about me in the forums, man. Is that how much our 8 years or so of friendship is worth to you? I must ask you to not bring such things before even having a serious conversation with me, thats the least I could expect from you.

And yeah, im having some personal problems in the last few months, maybe...

Lol that's so not my gm as I have metion some of these things to him and that's when I get the rubber because I'm the gm and I said so stamp


leo1925 wrote:
Sarrah wrote:
krevon wrote:
Drow Nobles can levitate and I banned clerics and paladins in my current game because the gods are missing. I don't agree on the not giving out xp part but hey I played under a gm that gave extra xp for critical hits, me playing a wizard didn't see much extra xp.
Why do you not allow players to play these classes without their magical aspects? What about the clerics that existed prior to the deities disappearances awaiting their return? Would that not be a very easy plot / goal / roleplay factor for a character of those classes to have?

So the player of such a paladin would play the warrior NPC class with high will save and the player of such a cleric would play the same but with 3/4 BAB instead of full BAB.

Would really someone play those things for fun?

This would be an interesting character twist, so I would have fun playing either class. I am not most people as most people would not play these characters. Preachers today are like clerics without magical power. Why disallow people like me from challenging ourselves with these two classes?


Sarrah wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Sarrah wrote:
krevon wrote:
Drow Nobles can levitate and I banned clerics and paladins in my current game because the gods are missing. I don't agree on the not giving out xp part but hey I played under a gm that gave extra xp for critical hits, me playing a wizard didn't see much extra xp.
Why do you not allow players to play these classes without their magical aspects? What about the clerics that existed prior to the deities disappearances awaiting their return? Would that not be a very easy plot / goal / roleplay factor for a character of those classes to have?

So the player of such a paladin would play the warrior NPC class with high will save and the player of such a cleric would play the same but with 3/4 BAB instead of full BAB.

Would really someone play those things for fun?
This would be an interesting character twist, so I would have fun playing either class. I am not most people as most people would not play these characters. Preachers today are like clerics without magical power. Why disallow people like me from challenging ourselves with these two classes?

In my world there are other things to draw power from. So druids and oracles are in play. It's in the over all story for my group to "find" the gods later on. I won't say much more than that in case one of the reads these boards.

More to the point, before we play we discuss what rules we are using and if everything is open or not. That way we are all on the same page during game play.


Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think you need to remind the GM that he is GM because everybody has accepted him as a GM.

The moment noone any longer wants him to be a GM, his reign of terror is over.

If he ever gets the picture that he was elected and can be dethrown by those who elected him, then he might pull back from the land of farce.

If not, then volunteer to GM yourself. If not, then quit. There have to be better ways to spend your time than taking #$%^&* from you GM every gaming session.

Stress kills.


I greatly appreciate everyone's advice. Hopefully it helps thank you all.


Newly GM wrote:

Hi all, im seto83 gm.

First and foremost, seto, im very disappointed with you. Accusing me of all this in a forum withouth even calling me out to discuss the matter isnt the best approach for this, specially when most of those said accusations are misinterpreted at best.

First thing, I didnt used these exact words for baning the barbarian. In fact, I banned them because they're harder for me to challenge than most classes, and as such I have trouble building encounters that are fair for everyone. Their ability to pounce, near immunity to magic and huge damage has proven more than a trouble for me in the past, and I decided it would be easier for me to GM withouth having to deal with this.

Second, I make the decisions I believe will be the most healthy for our gaming group. Sometimes it may seem arbitrary, but keep in mind that my main concerns are the game balance, something I try hard to achieve in order for a better overall gaming experience. The experience award is based on killing monsters alone for now, as im still analyzing the alternative metods for awarding it. It may change in the future, but for now I prefer to maintain it as is.

Third, you're accusing me of being a killer gm. Im not. If the players are using poor tactics in combat, its just normal for the monsters to attack what seems to be the better target in groups. Players should look to cover their more fragile allies in order to avoid such tactics. As for the added abilities in the monsters, I do this mainly to discourage the players from using the books as reference. I prefer to avoid the possibilities of metagaming, and this seems a good approach to do so.

Im really, really disappointed with you for making such accusations about me in the forums, man. Is that how much our 8 years or so of friendship is worth to you? I must ask you to not bring such things before even having a serious conversation with me, thats the least I could expect from you.

And yeah, im having some personal problems in the last few months, maybe my gm style has suffered a little from this, but I dont believe im being as horrible as youre implying to the community. Still, im sorry if I made you and the group feel that way. Sometimes its hard to separate real life issues from the gaming table.

1) Do you really need a public forum post to talk with your friend about personal things?

2) I don't approve of your reasoning for banning the barbarian. Barbars are easily challenge by things that swing big sticks that aren't too busy taking AOOs to kill the caster

3) Don't make up rules with your rulings. Also the party has no reason to know what their EXP totals are in PF. Unlike 3.5 there is no mechanic that interacts with EXP, so there is no reason for the PCs to know how much EXP they are getting. EXP is a pacing tool for the GM.

4) "Monster go after the biggest threat" is BS and you know it. My current GM rules ever monster intelligently and he doesn't single out the casters. Mobs tend to attack in the best way possible and that meas avoiding AOOs.

Shadow Lodge

Marthkus wrote:


1) Do you really need a public forum post to talk with your friend about personal things?

Why do you feel the need to jump on the GM's ass about this, when it was the player who started this?


Kthulhu wrote:
Marthkus wrote:


1) Do you really need a public forum post to talk with your friend about personal things?
Why do you feel the need to jump on the GM's ass about this, when it was the player who started this?

It's the GM making personal comments directly towards the player. The player was merely looking for anonymous help from the internet for his situation. It's the GM who brought personal statements to a public forum instead of using the private messaging system or face to face communication.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I got news for you, Marthkus...they're both still anonymous. Newly GM and seto83 are NOT their real names.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
I got news for you, Marthkus...they're both still anonymous. Newly GM and seto83 are NOT their real names.

OK, that actually made me snort my coffee from laughing... thanks.

but as the others have said, talk it out between you and see if these are serious issues, bump in the road issues or just a misunderstanding.

But always, ALWAYS address the problem. A whole lot of passive aggressive "avoid conflict at all costs' people out there who refuse to confront someone over a problem and just work it out... problems are like dirty diapers, they do not fix themselves and they certainly don't get better with age.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like I said thanks to everyone for their advice. I'm not sure whom newly gm is, but can assure it isn't my gm as I have metioned some of these issues to him in person. Btw I wonder if its to late to change my real name to seto83 lol.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well now I am just enchanted with the notion that someone is trolling as seto's gm. Is it true? Is is the [real GM? Where is my popcorn...

Grand Lodge

Zhayne wrote:
KainPen wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
KaiPen ... no. NO NO NO NO NO. The GM's job is NOT NOT NOT to kill all characters. That's textbook bad GMing and totally missing the point of the game.
I don't think it is bad gming, that is the monsters and villan job correct, If the gm does not try to do this, with every encounter, you fail as a gm because the game becomes to easy the game never become challangeing and the reward of victory are not as sweet. Go for the kill just don't be a jerk about it. That how is how players learn to be better players. The good guys don't always win. Killing a character is meaning less as it is so a GM should aim to do it. It make the game harder and more fun in the long run. the system already has a way to cheat death, via raise dead ect. If the it can't be raised roll up a new one.

*facepalm* Pathetic. Disgusting.

No, it's not. if the GM's job was to kill everybody, he'd just go 'you all have heart attacks and die! new PCs'.

This is a game of cooperative storytelling, not a competitive game. The DM is working with the players to create an entertaining story and gaming experience, not working against them to drive them into the ground.

I don't think that you or anyone else has the right to unilaterally declare this type of play invalid. It isn't the style of game that you want to play. fine. It isn't the style of game that I want to play either, but I do have a group of friends who used to LOVE this type of game. I only ever played the occasional time in that group because it wasn't my thing, but it was the way they liked the game to be. Most adventures seemed to have a 60-100% kill ratio. Grimtooth inspired traps were evident in almost every dungeon. Characters who lived to level up often retired as rich men... with a couple thousand GP.

Just be careful about telling people how they should play, it isn't like everyone in the world will like the same thing or is even supposed to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Newly GM wrote:

Honestly, if the monsters are intelligent, I would call it metagame for playing their intelligence as if they were just animals.

You're correct. Intelligent monsters should fight intelligently. That said, you have to figure out if your players want to play that sort of game. I know it sounds strange, but some players just want a game that's relatively easy and straight forward.

As an example, my PC group recently entered an underground cavern world where their vision was extremely limited. They tracked down a dragon, all the while someone they met was questioning them how they were possibly going to kill the dragon when it flies. The group didn't really consider this, and fought the dragon anyway.

Now, in many groups, I would have the dragon just kill them off slowly, because they choose poor tactics and I even dropped warnings on them. But in this group, they don't want to play to that level. They just want a very straight-forward, we run to this location, fight this guy in a pretty much straight-up fight, type of game.

It means making the enemies dumber that what they would really be, limiting conditional modifiers such as darkness, enemies fleeing when they rightly would, spell-like-abilities, poisons, etc.

Is this my preferred way of playing? No, but if the group has more fun with this style, then it becomes the right style for that group.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think a lot of the issues that ever arise between player and GM tend to revolve around the fact the players "forget" that its the GM's job to tell a story. It is after-all their story to tell and the players are the characters in the story. In the last nearly three decades of gaming I have seen more than my fair share of players and GM's who nit pick at each others roles and its just absurd. The players should focus on playing and the GM focus on story telling. Simply put if either party doesn't like the way things are going then there is the door.

As a player I can say there have been countless times I have not been fond of how things turned out in a game or a campaign and for the most part I have been good to just accept on faith that the GM knows what he is doing. Of course a little nudge of help with rules or style have been given to new GM's but over all its their style and their story to do with as they see fit.

More specific to the issue of the Original Poster... as a GM I have many house rules that I use in my campaign such as Paladins being a Prestige class requiring 1 level of fighter and 1 level of cleric. With that said banning a class isn't really all that "out there". Granted doing so for the reasons you gave seems silly to me but is there a chance he said that simply because the GM didn't want to discuss it for fear of giving something away in the story? Perhaps barbarians are banned because there was a recent culling of the barbarian tribes by the evil king?

One of the things I make very clear to my players before they play is that I do not subscribe to what i call the "Everquest style of play". You don't walk out of town and only fight creatures you stand a 99% chance of winning against. If you go looking for trouble you will most likely find it. With that said when I write adventures and scenarios i write them in the point of view of the bad guys. If its something they should know... they will use it. If there is magic treasure in their horde... they will use it. There will doubtfully be unguarded ways into their camp (without some reason for it)... etc. I have had several players take issue with my style and i have been happy to talk about it but ultimately there is a reason for everything I write so getting upset that creatures have powers not listed in the bestiary... too bad.

Players shouldn't know that information anyway unless they have done extensive fighting or research of the creatures.

Now I am not saying the GM is without fault here. It is after all his job to make the story fun for the players to be in, but Seto I ask you... why exactly are you upset with the GM? Is it because the GM isn't letting you have your way? Or is it because his style is making it impossible for players to have fun? I say this because it is often a misconception in the disagreement between the GM and player.

I will give you an example of one of the last group crushing arguments my table has had. The group had arrived at a small border town returning children they had rescued from a goblin encampment where they were being used as slave labor in mines. When they arrived the farmers were glad to have their children back and seeing these bigger than life hero's here in their town... asked them to help clear some ruins infested with lizardmen that had displaced the goblins that took the children (the PC's didn't know this fact yet). Without doing any research or investigating the PC's just charged into the ruins and proceeded to get arses handed to them in a very naught fashion. Three of the five members got mad and said that the fight was unfair and there was no way they could win. Most likely that was true considering their approach to the task.

The point is it was just one way of doing things and at that, the worst way since that is what the bad guys had anticipated. Sometimes the GM actually thinks ahead and gives detail to an adventure. Players cry foul... while the GM cries "willful ignorance"...

EDIT:

Before I forget. The going out of the way to kill one character over another... perhaps the bad guys are smart enough to pick out the biggest threat. In my scenarios if the enemies are intelligent they often take out spellcasters first knowing they include healing and mass damage support. Wizards in my games have learned to use tactics and positioning to better effect... which is ultimately something that has made them better players.


ArtelSriven wrote:

Personally I think a lot of the issues that ever arise between player and GM tend to revolve around the fact the players "forget" that its the GM's job to tell a story. It is after-all their story to tell and the players are the characters in the story. In the last nearly three decades of gaming I have seen more than my fair share of players and GM's who nit pick at each others roles and its just absurd. The players should focus on playing and the GM focus on story telling. Simply put if either party doesn't like the way things are going then there is the door.

As a player I can say there have been countless times I have not been fond of how things turned out in a game or a campaign and for the most part I have been good to just accept on faith that the GM knows what he is doing. Of course a little nudge of help with rules or style have been given to new GM's but over all its their style and their story to do with as they see fit.

More specific to the issue of the Original Poster... as a GM I have many house rules that I use in my campaign such as Paladins being a Prestige class requiring 1 level of fighter and 1 level of cleric. With that said banning a class isn't really all that "out there". Granted doing so for the reasons you gave seems silly to me but is there a chance he said that simply because the GM didn't want to discuss it for fear of giving something away in the story? Perhaps barbarians are banned because there was a recent culling of the barbarian tribes by the evil king?

One of the things I make very clear to my players before they play is that I do not subscribe to what i call the "Everquest style of play". You don't walk out of town and only fight creatures you stand a 99% chance of winning against. If you go looking for trouble you will most likely find it. With that said when I write adventures and scenarios i write them in the point of view of the bad guys. If its something they should know... they will use it. If there is magic treasure in their horde... they will...

Thats exactly what im saying: im not doing anything withouth a purpose, as some of the posters are implying. Im no jerk, im no player killer, I just do what I believe to be the most logical approach to the circumstances (like using intelligent tactics for intelligent enemies for that matter). Seto (and some posters basing only on his comments) are implying that im doing everything out of nothing and being a jerk (DrDeth words), and I already stated the reasons why this is just wrong.


@Newly GM

seto83 wrote:
Like I said thanks to everyone for their advice. I'm not sure whom newly gm is, but can assure it isn't my gm as I have metioned some of these issues to him in person. Btw I wonder if its to late to change my real name to seto83 lol.

0_0


seto83 wrote:
Like I said thanks to everyone for their advice. I'm not sure whom newly gm is, but can assure it isn't my gm as I have metioned some of these issues to him in person. Btw I wonder if its to late to change my real name to seto83 lol.

Not sure where you're trying to get at here. You just made a few remarks last game, didnt discussed it at details like you did in this thread. I visit the forums regularly, but only made an account now to reply to you after seeing your post. Still, I dont think that discussing it here is being positive to us. We have to continue this conversation next time we meet, and I think the rest of the group should participate in it too.


Marthkus wrote:

@Newly GM

seto83 wrote:
Like I said thanks to everyone for their advice. I'm not sure whom newly gm is, but can assure it isn't my gm as I have metioned some of these issues to him in person. Btw I wonder if its to late to change my real name to seto83 lol.
0_0

starting to sound like a bunch of troll we should stop feeding them and burn them so they don't regn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Newly, sorry to see that you're having these issues with your group. I know how it feels to have people turned on you unfairly after a disgruntled friend rampages through the internet with half a story.
If you're players are really this upset and unwilling to speak directly to you about it, maybe consider taking a break for awhile and letting them run their own game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Newly GM wrote:
I expected this place to be a little more mature

Bwahahahaha!

Since you just made an account, I'll let you in on a little secret. You shouldn't come to the forums(this or others on the web) with any other goal than to kill time. Nothing else of value can be gained.

Shadow Lodge

First thing you've said in this thread I've fully agreed with, Marthkus.


Kthulhu wrote:
You've encountered the dirty little secret of this forum...90% of responses are going to support any player who claims his GM is evil, regardless of anything else that is posted. This forum, like the game it is based around, does it's best to further player entitlement and marginalized the GM as much as possible.

Funny, when discussion on GM vs. PC disputes come up, I see a lot more posts that basically boil down to: "Remember, if the GM suddenly yanks your pants off and starts molesting you in the middle of the game, the only appropriate response is to smile, thank him, and offer a prophylactic and a selection of lubricants. Anything else is just being an ungrateful whiner to the almighty GOD who has deigned come down from on high to run game for an unworthy worm like you."

Grand Lodge

Is Newly the real DM?

The OP doesn't seem to think so.

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / power tripping Gm? All Messageboards